Dear Mr. Beck:

Thank you for your letter dated May 15, 2014, a copy of which is attached.  First, let me say that I was surprised by the tone of your letter.  Second, as a matter of professional courtesy, I would have expected you to call me, not Mr. David Bryne, for clarification about media statements attributed to me.

Third, and perhaps most troubling, is your suggestion that the FBI did not express a willingness to enter into a new relationship of close intergovernmental cooperation with Alabama State University (“ASU”).  As you can see from the attached emails, this offer was presented to ASU by FBI SSRA Kelvin King during an April 10, 2014, meeting for which Kenneth Thomas, who is ASU's General Counsel, and I were both present.  You were not present during the meeting.  We  met with Mr. King per your directions.

Our meeting with Mr. King covered a number of subjects, including: (a) the so-called Medicaid reimbursement issue, (b) the alleged “conflicts of interest” by Elton Dean and Marvin Wiggins, who are two of ASU's trustees, (c) the nature and scope of contracts relating to the construction and operation of the new ASU stadium, (d) a short history of the Knight v. Alabama case, (e) the significance of U.S. District Judge Harold Murphy’s March 17, 2014, letter to University trustees (a copy of which was subsequently provided to Mr. King), and (f) the FSS “Preliminary Update” that you quote throughout your letter. Another matter which ASU referred to your office was also discussed but will not be disclosed in this correspondence.  It was near the end of the meeting, following discussions on these topics, when Mr. King offered to assist ASU.

Mr. Thomas and I believed that Mr. King's offer of assistance to ASU was sincere and genuine at the time.  We had no reason to believe otherwise.  We reported this offer of assistance to the appropriate ASU officials in the spirit in which it was made to us.

Furthermore, in your letter, you mistakenly claim that ASU's retention of these lawyers was made to aid the University in its presentation to FSS.  However, the retention of private outside counsel for certain ASU trustees, officers, and employees greatly aided Mr. Thomas and me in properly preparing and presenting ASU’s information to Mr. King.  My May 9th report to the board of trustees in this regard clearly states that the retention of outside counsel was related to the matters covered in my April 10th FBI presentation.  The work of these outside lawyers has also been helpful to the University's preparation of FSS-related presentation materials in other venues.

On May 8, 2014, I advised Mr. King that I would brief the ASU board of trustees on his offer of assistance, which he extended during our April 10th meeting and made on behalf of the FBI.  With no objection voiced by Mr. King, I gave the briefing on May 9th.

Prior to receiving your May 15th letter, I had never received any oral or written communication from Mr. King suggesting that the intergovernmental relationship, which I summarized in my April 11th and May 8th emails, was inaccurately described or mischaracterized.  At no time between April 10th and May 9th, did Mr. King notify me that

the FBI was withdrawing its offer of a close intergovernmental relationship with ASU.   Your letter is the first and only indication that I have received stating that the FBI has no such interest in this regard.  

Additionally, we have never made any representation, publicly or privately, suggesting that the U.S. Attorney’s office has sought or desired any type of collaborative relationship with ASU.  Your aggressive defense of Governor Bentley and the FSS “Preliminary Update" makes it clear that you do not want that kind of relationship.

It is one thing for the FBI to change its mind and withdraw Mr. King's April 10th offer of assistance to ASU.  It is another thing to claim that I misrepresented the statements made by Mr. King during the April 10th meeting.  The attached emails and Mr. Thomas’ presence support my version of this event. 

Finally, your letter is highly critical of the University’s retention of private counsel to interface with FSS during the forensic audit process in which millions of documents were gathered, catalogued, and provided to FSS.  During my 41 years of practicing law, I have never seen a corporate entity undergo a forensic audit assessment without being represented by legal counsel.  Likewise, I have never seen a sitting U.S. Attorney criticize a public entity for using legal counsel to assist the audited entity.   Moreover, the State of Alabama has a long and distinguished record of denying accused persons the right to counsel and the right to effective assistance of counsel.  This is a very sensitive subject for that portion of the state’s population which has historically been denied its Constitutional rights in this regard.

Please call me if you have any questions about the matters referenced in my email or the correspondence attached to it.

Thanks you.

Donald V. WatkinsDonald V. Watkins, PCAttorney at Law2170 Highland Avenue S.Suite 100Birmingham, Al 35205 USA205-223-2294 (Mobile)205-558-4665 (Office)877-558-4670 (Fax)Special Counsel to ASU